Improving Science Education: 'Beware of Tunnel Vision'

Gloomy returns from many inquiries into the general condition of
science education leave no doubt of the need for major improvements in
learning standards and financial support.

But the difficulty with many of these inquiries is that they are
carried out by science enthusiasts--and like enthusiasts of various
persuasions, they sometimes are prone to hallucinate about the nirvana
that would result from mass conversion to their way of thinking.

There is little evidence, for example, of a direct relationship
between the admittedly poor current state of science education and the
soggy condition of the American economy. In fact, many people who have
been well educated in the sciences--industrial engineers and biologists
prominent among them--are just as unemployed as teen-age high-school
dropouts.

(Computer specialists remain in demand, but they are a small slice
of the national workforce, and the demand for them has been decreasing
lately.) And according to forecasts by the Department of Labor, the big
areas of job growth over the next 10 years will be in fields with
little or no technical content--construction, food service, janitoring,
and general office work.

Nevertheless, a new study, commissioned by the National Science
Board's Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and
Technology, asserts that a massive expansion and improvement of science
education is indispensable to protect "the quality of our manufactured
products, the viability of our trade, our leadership in research and
development, and our standards of living." Among the recommended
changes are a "substantially lengthened" school day to accommodate
additional science and mathematics education, and special pay increases
for teachers in those fields.

Because the National Science Board's study (Educating Americans for
the 21st Century) was conducted mainly by scientists, it might be
expected to offer some evidence that lack of education is an impediment
to economic survival. It offers a bit, but the evidence is hardly
persuasive: A survey of industrial firms turned up many complaints
about the math and science background of recent high-school
graduates.

As the study reported, "the lack of adequate preparation for work of
current high-school graduates has not been serious enough to affect
most company operations." The one in five firms afflicted by such
educational inadequacies responded with inservice remedial programs--a
response that is not unusual when firms seek to mold their staffs to
their particular needs.

Without even a nod to mounting evidence that there is more glitter
than education in the highly vaunted computer "revolution" in the
schools, the National Science Board's study embraces computers as a
kind of miracle cure for numerous ills of our society. In fact, it
becomes so gushy over the pace of computer developments that it says of
them, ''Almost any statement made today will, therefore, be obsolete in
a few years, if not months."

Perhaps. But one of today's statements about computers and schools
that might be considered comes from yet another study of the woes of
education, High School: A Report on Secondary Education in America, by
the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. In a rare
departure from the chorus of enthusiasm for computers, Ernest L. Boyer,
the former U.S. Commissioner of Education who heads the foundation,
sensibly points out that "technology revolutions have failed to touch
the schools largely because purchases frequently have preceded
planning." The result, he says, has been heaps of expensive equipment,
often adding to the prestige of the school, but with little educational
value.

Mr. Boyer doesn't dismiss the computer's educational potential, but
he does eye it with refreshing skepticism that is scarce these days..
He notes that one need not know much about a computer to use it
effectively. This is the nature of much modern technology, from
television sets to automatic transmissions. Students going on to
technical professions should master the innards of the wondrous new
machines, he states; others can spend time more profitably on other
subjects.

What is curious about the promotion of science education and
computers as the key to economic revival is the unquestioning deference
that the press confers on missionaries for the cause.

Thus, news accounts took little or no note of the leadership of the
National Science Board that produced the report equating national
survival with computer training and usage. The study was commissioned
by the chairman of the foundation's policymaking board, Lewis
Branscomb', whose full-time post is as vice president and chief
scientist of the International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), the
world's leading computer manufacturer. The study was co-chaired by
William T. Coleman Jr., a member of the board of directors of IBM

Mr. Branscomb's and Mr. Coleman's integrity and dedication to public
service are not open to question. But their tunnel-visioned concept of
the route to economic survival does invite curiosity.

Similarly, there is no doubt that the educational system needs a
thorough shaking up, but that shouldn't stop us from strictly
appraising the ideas of people rushing in with their various agendas
and pet schemes.

Daniel S. Greenberg is a Washington-based columnist who writes on science and government.

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.